"six strikes" takes effect July 1st

[Mr Furious]

Looks like the ISPs and the entertainment industry are moving forward on July 1st with their anti-piracy program.

http://news.yahoo.com/six-strikes-yo...144559247.html


"Starting July 1, the nation’s largest Internet service providers (ISPs) have agreed to adopt a “Graduated Response” program intended to cut down on illegal file sharing. The program, colloquially known as the “six-strikes” system, is the brainchild of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) — the same industry groups that conjured up SOPA and PIPA. The system will affect millions of Internet users across the country. Whether you download your music and movies from the Internet or not, it is important for everyone to understand what the plan is, and how it could affect your life. Here is everything you need to know about “six-strikes.”"

[Kyobanim]

What I want to know is . . .

1. Why aren't people allowed to protect their intellectual properties on the internet?
2. Why do most internet users think the internet is free?
3. Why do internet users think they can steal and not be held accountable/responsable?

[x SF med]

Originally Posted by Kyobanim

What I want to know is . . .

1. Why aren't people allowed to protect their intellectual properties on the internet?
2. Why do most internet users think the internet is free?
3. Why do internet users think they can steal and not be held accountable/responsable?

+1

[longrange1947]

Because a majority of young people today feel that everything should be free OR provided by the government.

[Mills]

Originally Posted by longrange1947

Because a majority of young people today feel that everything should be free OR provided by the government.

What do you mean? I can't study liberal arts and then get a 6 figure job?

Well fuck it, im just not going to work then............

Screw you 01% !!!!



Morons.

[Kyobanim]

Thank you for edumacating me on the current status of recording at home, I never would have figured that one out.

Jack Conte is making money on the new business model. That's not the issue here. The issue is content that is owned by someone else. Jack can do this because he retained all the rights to his stuff. There are countless places where I can post music, put a price on it, and watch people ignore me; but I still own 100% of the rights to the music. Go back 20 years ago; and those artists didn't have an outlet like the internet, so they are reliant on collecting under the old model. Shouldn't they collect what is theirs?

Let's move this up into the next century. It's 2112, you're a knife maker. Pictures of your knife are on whatever social media is in place of the internet. I like the knife so I find a file sharing site that has hacked your site, copied your plans and posted them on the current Pirate Bay. I drop those plans into my nifty gadget the builds me a knife based on those plans. Cool, I have a great knife and it didn't cost me anything. I think I'll make some for my friends. Maybe other people will see these knives and go to a store and actually pourchase one. Though, probably not. Why pay for something when you can get it legally(lol) for free.

Who's protecting your intellectual property? How do you collect payment for your product?

This is the same type of thing that's going on now with music, books, movies, etc.

[DJ Urbanovsky]

What I want to know is why I ever see people supporting organizations such as RIAA at all... Because they don't protect the artist, they protect the record company. The record company doesn't care one whit about the artist.

Read this: http://news.yahoo.com/six-strikes-yo...144559247.html

If you ever wondered why a band spends three years on the road touring between albums, it's because tours and merch are where they make their real money. And they're lucky if they get any label support at all, unless they're a super huge act, at which point they don't really need the support because their name is already out there.

You know what a record company will do? They'll tell you what you can and can't put on your album. They'll cut songs from your album. They'll tell you what the singles are going to be. They'll refuse to release your album. They'll withdraw tour and marketing support. They'll use your music to sell cars or laundry detergent or cell phone service. They'll sit on a completed album for two years, and when you try to release music under a different name because you do this for a living and you need to eat, they'll sue you to try and prevent you from doing that. They'll have RIAA sue people for downloading and sharing content that you as an artist have declared to be open source and physically placed in the market yourself. They'll find you a top name producer for your album, and then hold up the recording and production process for a year while he works other more lucrative projects. If you need actual examples of this kind of abuse, all you have to do is Google Tori Amos, Tool, Nine Inch Nails, and Hank Williams III. And that's just for starters.

Kyobanim:

1) This stuff isn't being set up to protect regular people like you and I. It's set up to protect entities. Oops... I forgot. Now corporations are people too. Sorry about that... And do you know what sort of red tape and money are involved in protecting your intellectual property as an individual? Because I do. It's practically unachievable if you aren't loaded. Lawyers. Courtrooms. Travel. And all the time you spend not doing your actual work, because you're fighting a protracted legal battle. Think around $20-$50K per incident of IP theft. My pockets aren't that deep.

2) I don't know about anybody else, but every time I write that monthly $50 check to my ISP, I am quite aware that the Internet isn't free.

3) Who does Internet piracy hurt again? Because it ain't the artist. Despite what Metallica would have you believe. Back in the 80's we used to copy and swap tapes. In the 90's, it was burning CDs. These days, it's downloading audio files. When you were a kid, did you ever put a cassette recorder up to your speakers to record your favorite song as it was being played on the radio? THAT is copyright infringement. Ever make a friend or love interest a mix tape? That's copyright infringement. Ever record a movie on VHS off of HBO so your could watch it later, or show it to a friend? Copyright infringement. Ever copy and paste text from an article that you read on-line? Copyright infringement.

Speaking of Metallica, I'd like to tell you a story to illustrate what I'm trying to say. I remember the first time I heard Metallica. It was 1986 and Master Of Puppets had just been released. But I didn't know about that, because what I heard first was their 1983 album, Kill 'Em All. We were in my friend Pat's basement, and our friend Jimmy had a second or third generation copy on cassette that he'd gotten from God knows where. The sound quality was terrible, but turned up loud? We didn't care, and I was immediately hooked. I had never heard anything like that before. I don't know how much money I spent on Metallica T-shirts, albums, and actually seeing them play live over the years, but is hasn't been insignificant. I've gone out and bought physical copies of every single major album they ever put out, in some cases being the first person in line at the store. I even re-purchased when I wore some of my existing copies out. Some of those albums, like both of the Loads, Some Kind Of Monster, and that abortion of an album they did with Lou Reed, were pretty much total garbage, but they've got my money already. In all of those years, I've made countless copies of their music to share with my friends and loved ones, many of whom went on to become die-hard fans and who also ended up spending their hard earned dollars on Metallica related stuff. Guess what? It is because of all of that early tape copying and sharing that Metallica is now one of the hugest names in rock music. There probably isn't a person who reads this that doesn't know who Metallica is. Back in the day, that was the only real way to get your name out there, and bands supported it. The difference is now, Metallica doesn't want you copying their music...

My point in saying any of this is simply to illustrate, once again, that organizations such as RIAA are about supporting corporations, not the regular guy, and are about stifling and controlling the flow of data and raking in money for those corporations, all the while keeping a boot on the neck of the artist and keeping them hungry so they'll obey the will of the corporation. When my band releases its album, I'm pushing for digital format only. If people like it, they can donate money via Paypal or buy it outright either from us or from a digital online retailer such as I-tunes. The vast majority of record labels can suck it and go to hell. They are evil dinosaurs, terrified of their own dying futures, and are fighting to stay alive in a climate that has rendered them virtually obsolete. A climate, ironically, that they have created via their own actions and greed. Why do you think they've been trying to stifle Youtube?

[DJ Urbanovsky]

And then there is this: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...82610186.shtml

[Kyobanim]

I get a check from BMI every 6 months, based on song performance and plays by different venues like bars, hotels, whatever. If someone downloads a song from the internet and plays it for themselves I really don't give a shit.

But when someone downloads a song and plays in in their bar, business establishment, burns a copy and gives/sells it to someone else, etc., I have a problem with it.

The business model for the music industry hasn't changed in 40 years. You want to know why the corporation make all the money? They are the ones that:
1. Pay for the studio time. Usually at a large cost, depending on the studio.
2. Pays for a top notch engineer. Price usually not negotiable,
3. Pays for the producer, again, price not negotiable.
Needless to say, the cost of producing an albumn is not cheap, average cost 250 to 500k.

Now, the company puts up the cash to make this record, pays to market it, advertising, whatever. They have also paid the artist a piece of change based on negotiations and what the company thinks they are going to make in profits, most often it isn't much, but sometimes it a big chunk of change. That's why they can tell you what you can and can't do.

So the first person to get paid IF the cash starts rolling in is the company. Usually they don't make enough money to pay for what they got but that's the nature of the beast.

Here's the good part, the artist knows going in how this is all going to play out and how much they are going to get out of it. They know that they will have to tour to make money. That's how it works. The artist only see's money from an albumn if they're on par with michael jackson or linkin park or someone like that. You have to literally earn the right to have a say in your album creation.

Now, by making copies of metallica songs and giving them to your friends you robbed the writers of those songs (metallica) of royalties. Now, the question isn't 'how many fans did they get from you're pirated songs' but, was a crime committed?

According to U.S. laws, you can be charged and fined if found guilty.

I could go on but I have found from past conversations that arguing sides in this is pointless. No one wants to follow the law when it comes to intellectual rights.

[Kyobanim]

Originally Posted by DJ Urbanovsky

And then there is this: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...82610186.shtml

What that article neglects to tell you is how mych money the company has invested in the creation of that product. And it neglects to tell you that the artist has a piece of paper called a contract that they have to read and sign. If they don't read it then it's their bad.